From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v6] drm/i915: wait render timeout ioctl
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 14:07:38 -0700
Message-ID: <20120512140738.717e7d18@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1336769652-11740-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1336769652-11740-3-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<4FAD9C1F.5060303@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F059B9E76B
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 12 May 2012 14:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FAD9C1F.5060303@linux.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: eugeni.dodonov@intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:09:19 -0300
Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 05/11/2012 05:54 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > @@ -1800,6 +1800,7 @@ struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = {
> >   	DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_OVERLAY_ATTRS, intel_overlay_attrs, DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> >   	DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, intel_sprite_set_colorkey, DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> >   	DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, intel_sprite_get_colorkey, DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> > +	DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_UNLOCKED),
> >   };
> 
> I was just wondering (not directly related to this patch, but more 
> thinking on the overall gem flow) - don't we want to use DRM_AUTH here?

I'd like to hear from others on this. I never really understand when to
use DRM_AUTH, and when not to. Given that BUSY ioctl uses DRM_AUTH, you
are probably right (and execbuffer too for that matter).

However from a security perspective, I don't really see why we need
DRM_AUTH for this, or BUSY, and OTOH, set domain doesn't have DRM_AUTH,
and the operation is quite similar, so I dunno.

At this point I think whatever is most consistent is the right answer.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center